Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Sorquist v. Ward

Sorquist v. Ward, 83 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1936)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1936-05-23
Topic: antitrust

PER CURIAM. This appeal presents no doubtful point of law. The hearing before the Immigration Inspector was conducted with scrupulous fairness and the accused was represented by counsel. The Inspector’s decision, adverse to the alien, was carefully and fairly considered by the Board of Review and was affirmed. It can by no means be said to be unsupported by any substantial evidence.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sorquist v. Ward. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

SORQUIST v. WARD,83 F.2d 890(1st Cir. 1936)

SORQUIST v. WARD et al.

No. 3105.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 23, 1936.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maine; John A. Peters, Judge.

Proceeding by Gustave Adolf Sorquist, alias, for a writ of habeas corpus to Mary H. Ward, United States Commissioner of Immigration, and others. From a decree denying the writ (11 F. Supp. 525), petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Nathan Greenberg, of Boston, Mass., and Richard Armstrong, of Biddeford, Me., for appellant.

Edward J. Harrigan, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Portland, Me. (John D. Clifford, Jr., U.S. Atty., of Portland, Me., on the brief), for appellees.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents no doubtful point of law. The hearing before the Immigration Inspector was conducted with scrupulous fairness and the accused was represented by counsel. The Inspector's decision, adverse to the alien, was carefully and fairly considered by the Board of Review and was affirmed. It can by no means be said to be unsupported by any substantial evidence.

The decree appealed from is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Peters in the District Court.Page 891Page 957